Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(i )
p→q
q→r
◦
◦◦ p ∨ q → r
Warning. In logic, the words “true” and “valid” have very different
meanings - truth is talking about the statements making up an argu-
ment and validity is talking about whether the conclusion follows from
the premises. Note that a perfectly valid argument may have a false
conclusion depending upon the truth value of the premises. Likewise,
an invalid argument may have a true conclusion depending upon the
truth value of the premises.
3
p→q
p∨r
◦◦◦ r
The truth table is:
p q r p→q p∨r r
→ T T T T T T
→ T T F T T F
T F T F T T
T F F F T F
→ F T T T T T
F T F T F F
→ F F T T T T
F F F T F F
This is clearly not a valid argument - as stated above, if the victim had
money in their pockets, and the motivation of the crime was robbery
but not vengeance, this satisfies all hypothesis, but not the conclusion
as suggested by the truth table.
4
p→q
p
◦
◦◦ q
(ii ) The argument called modus tollens defined as
p→q
∼q
◦◦◦ ∼ p
Proof. We shall show that modus tollens is valid.
p q p→q ∼q ∼p
T T T F F
T F F T F
F T T F T
→ F F T T T
In this case there is only one critical row to consider, and its truth
value it true. Hence this is a valid argument.
Result 2.2. (Generalization) Suppose p and q are statement forms.
Then the following arguments (called generalization) are valid:
p q
◦
◦◦ p ∨ q ◦
◦◦ p ∨ q
Result 2.3. (Conjunction) Suppose p and q are statement forms. Then
the following argument (called conjunction) is valid:
p
q
◦
◦◦ p ∧ q
Result 2.4. (Specialization) Suppose p and q are statement forms.
Then the following arguments (called specialization) are valid:
p∧q p∧q
◦
◦◦ p ◦◦◦ q
5
p→q
q→r
◦
◦◦ p → r
Result 2.7. (Proof by Division into Cases) Suppose p, q and r are
statement forms. Then the following argument (called proof by division
into cases) is valid:
p∨q
p→r
q→r
◦◦◦ r
Result 2.8. (Contradiction) Suppose p is statement form and let c
denote a contradiction. Then the following argument (called proof by
contradiction) is valid:
∼p→c
◦◦◦ p
That is, if you can show that the hypothesis that p is false leads to a
contradiction, then p has to be true.
Proof. The truth table for this argument is as follows:
p c ∼p→c p
→ T F T T
F F F F
This is a valid argument - there is only one critical row and this row
has a positive truth value.
(iii ) We can now use Modus Ponens on the last statement and (i)
to conclude r
(iv ) Since we know ∼ p and r, we can use conjunction to get ∼ p∧r
(v ) Now we can use Modus Ponens on the last observation and (v)
concluding ∼ s
(vi ) Finally, we can use elimination on (ii). i.e. we know s∨ ∼ q
and we know ∼ s, therefore we must have ∼ q.
p→q
q
◦◦◦ p
On first glance, it looks like Modus Ponens, but this is not since the
second hypothesis is q and not p. This argument is invalid since we
know p implies q, but just because q has occurred does not imply that
p has occurred. The truth table of this argument is as follows:
p q p→q q p
→ T T T T T
T F F F T
→ F T T T F
F F T F F
This argument is invalid since the third row is a critical row with a false
conclusion. An example of this argument would be something like:
8
p→q
∼p
◦
◦◦ ∼ q
On first glance, it looks like Modus Tollens, but this is not since the
second hypothesis is ∼ p and not ∼ q. This argument is invalid since
we know p implies q, but just because p has not occurred does not
imply that q has not occurred. As with the last example, we could
show this argument is invalid using a truth table. An example of this
argument would be something like:
If I run I will get there quicker
I did not run
Therefore I did not get there quicker
Again, this argument is false since it doesn’t take into consideration
that instead of running, I could have driven to get there quicker!
Homework
(i ) From the book, pages 41-43: Questions: 1, 4, 7, 11, 13b, 18,
20, 22, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 37, 38c, 42